Mike McCallum versus Emile Griffith @154

It's a fascinating one to ponder. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of either man stopping the other, even in a 15-rounder. If they fought 100 times, I'd see McCallum winning 51-49 I think! I can't commit any more than that.

 

I think your underrated that performance Lora, it was a master class of a break down to the body while making his opponent constantly miss and countering him. I dont think Watson was green either, he was actually the favourate believe it or not, would go on to give Eubank 2 great fights the next year and had just beat Benn (although he did blind him with the thumb from memory). Considering how Watson performed against both men it puts McCallums performance in perspective

In my view Griffith is smaller, weaker and less durable than most of McCallums MW comp, more comparable to his LMW comp size wise and McCallum beat up on those. Griffith is ofcourse better and I wouldnt say a stoppage is certain but its a possibility if he imposes his size and breaks him down

 

It's a gerat performance, don't get me wrong.I did think Watson learned and improved on it though.

He only really had a similarly raw Benn and a washed up looking Don Lee on his record before it.No world class technicians of any note.

 

I don't know that they aren't comparable in that department. Carter's KO of Griffith was every bit as brutal as McCallum's of Curry. Both were essentially one-punch ordeals (it was academic after that first KD of Griffith off the hook). Rubin probably hit a bit harder than Mike but it's hardly as though they were at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The fact that Curry was stopped more times in a shorter career (mostly later) I attribute to more circumstantial matters, particularly a very short prime of physical ability, than to him being more susceptible than Griffith.

Both men took plenty enough hits in their day to avoid being placed in the category of outright "poor" punch resistance.

 

Nobody does "5" point must systems' anymore...... And I hated the "RDS" system as well............ The "10" point system is fine with me---when the judges aren't blind as bats...
:deal

MR.BILL

 

To wit: say Griffith leaves the same momentary opening he did vs. Carter; and/or McCallum is able to time and launch that same demon that devoured Curry - do you not think Mike could lay him flat? I certainly think he could.

 

tough fight i would go for a narrow mcCallum win over 15 rounds

i cant see either fighter being beaten inside the distance

the mcCallum/watson fight i was at and i left feeling i had seen a man beat a boy and i do not mean in any way to be little watson's boxing ability

 

A decision is probable here but, if a KO or TKO were to occur, McCallum would be the dude to score it...... Again, I never thought Griffith had the true size of a Jr. Middleweight let alone Middleweight......... Griffith used to fight as welterweight champion at 144 to 147 pounds back in the 60s........ McCallum was huge at 154 and solid at 160.............

MR.BILL

 

I'm surprised to see all the McCallum narrow points win, what is it about him you guys favour?

If anything I would think Griffith's versatility would win him it, more than anything McCallum can bring.

 

I started to ponder this but then fell asleep just thinking about it.

 

Fact is, McCallum was quite skilled and owned modest power between 154 to 160 pounds.... And once again, McCallum was very good sized between 154 to 160 pounds....

My guess is, a great big man beats a great small man........ McCallum was much naturally bigger than Griffith was.......

MR.BILL:bbb

 

I don't think Griffith was anymore versatile at this weight than Mccallum.

he became a bit of a minimalist cutie past 147.Rather than the more complete boxer-puncher he had previously been.

 

YEAH! Cuz Griffith was really too small to kick huge ass at 160 pounds.... Griffith was at his best at 147........

MR.BILL:deal

 

He was still a borderline great fighter at 154/160 though.

 

I'll buy that......:deal

MR.BILL:hat